State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Divisional Manager vs Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidyut Holding ... on 16 January, 2015
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/14/393
Instituted on : 05.06.2014
Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office No.3, Madina Manjil,
Kutchery Chowk, Raipur
At present : R.K. Plaza, Pachpedi Naka, Ring Road,
Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidyut Holding Co. Maryadit,
Through : Welfare Office - Shri R.P. Gurudiwan,
Office - Industrial Relation Officer,
Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidyut Holding Co. Maryadit,
Danganiya, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER.
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Gunjan Giri Goswami, for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for the respondent.
ORDER
DATED : /01/2015 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.04.2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.180/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum has allowed the complaint of the respondent (complainant) and directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay within a month from the date of order a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, which is // 2 // insured amount under Group Personal Accidental Insurance Policy, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 01.06.2012 till realisation. The District Forum has also directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony. The respondent (complainant) will pay the aforesaid amount to the legal heirs of the deceased Narendra Kumar Yadav within a month from the recovery of the above amount from the Insurance Company. The District Forum has also directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation to the respondent (complainant).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that : the respondent (complainant) purchased Group Personal Accidental Insurance Policy from the appellant (O.P.) for its employee, who are working with it. In this regard an Agreement (Consent Letter) was also executed in writing between both the parties to the effect that in the case of accidental death of any employee of the respondent (complainant), the respondent (complainant) will take all action and the respondent (complainant) will have a right to take action against the appellant (O.P.) (Insurance Company) on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased. According to the Agreement (Consent Letter), in case of accidental death of any employee of the respondent (complainant), the appellant (O.P.) will pay the insured amount under Group Personal Accidental Insurance Policy // 3 // to the respondent (complainant). The deceased Narendra Kumar Yadav was working as Helper with the respondent (complainant). On 03.09.2011 the deceased Narendra Kumar Yadav was working, the accident occurred and due to accident he fell down and was admitted in the hospital and had died on 03.09.2011. The matter was report to Police Station, Kusmi, District Balrampur where Merg Intimation No.33/11 and inquest on dead body of the deceased was prepared. The dead body of the deceased was sent to C.H.C. Kusmi for the post mortem examination and post mortem was conducted. The claim in this regard was submitted by the respondent (complainant) before the appellant (O.P.), but the appellant (O.P.) repudiated the claim of the respondent (complainant) on flimsy ground, therefore, the respondent (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the relief clause of the compliant.
3. The appellant (O.P.) filed written statement before the District Forum and denied all the allegations leveled by the respondent (complainant) against the appellant (O.P.) in the complaint. The appellant (O.P.) pleaded that the appellant (O.P.) has not committed any deficiency in service and the respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation from it. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Legal heirs of the deceased are // 4 // necessary party in the complaint and without adding them as party in the complaint, the complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum. The amount under the GPA insurance policy was not liable to pay and hence not paid by the respondent (complainant) and nothing has been produced regarding payment of compensation as per Group Personal Accidental Insurance Policy by the respondent (complainant). The deceased himself was negligent and he himself was liable for his death. The complaint was not filed with clean hands, therefore, the compliant is liable to be dismissed.
4. After due appreciation of the material available before it, learned District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay compensation to the respondent (complainant), as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
5. The respondent (complainant) filed documents. Document A-1 is photocopy of Group Personal Accidental Insurance Policy, A-2 is photocopy of cheque issued by the respondent (complainant) in favour of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, A-3 is photocopy of Agreement (Consent Letter) executed between both the parties, A-4 is photocopy of Personal Accident Claim Form, A-5 is photocopy of application for post mortem, post mortem report, A-6 is merg intimation, A-7 is inquest, panchnama, A-8 is photocopy of order dated 19.10.2011 issued by Executive Engineer (O & M) Dn. C.S.P.D.C.L. // 5 // Ambikapur, A-9 is photocopy of letter dated 01.10.2010 sent by the Executive Director (Human Resource) of C.G. State Power Holding Company Ltd., Raipur to The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, Divisional Office No.3, Raipur (C.G.), A-10 is photocopy of letter dated 07.09.2011 sent by the appellant (O.P) to the General Manager (HR), Chhattisgarh Rajay Power Holding Co. Ltd. Raipur (C.G.), A-11 is photocopy of letter dated 14.12.2011 sent by the General Manager (HR), C.G. State Power Holding Co. Ltd., Raipur to the appellant (O.P.), A-12 is photocopy of letter dated 22.11.2011 sent by the Industrial Relation Officer, C.G. State Power Holding Co. Ltd. Raipur to the appellant (O.P.), A-13 is photocopy of letter dated 22.10.2011 sent by the Executive Engineer (O & M) Dn. C.S.P.D.C.L. Ambikapur to the appellant (O.P.), A-14 is photocopy of letter dated 22.10.2011 sent by Executive Engineer (O & M) Dn. C.S.P.D.C.L. Ambikapur to the appellant (O.P.), A-15 is photocopy of letter dated 07.12.2011 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the Executive Engineer, S/S Div. Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.), A-16 is photocopy of letter dated 09.11.2011 sent by the Executive Engineer (O & M) Dn. C.S.P.D.C.L. Ambikapur to Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Labour Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), Form -A, A-17 is photocopy of letter dated 04.04.2012 sent by Executive Engineer (O & M) Dn. C.S.P.D.C.L. Ambikapur to Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Labour Court, Ambikapur, // 6 // District Surguja (C.G.), A-18 is photocopy of letter dated 22.02.2012 sent by General Manager (HR), C.G. State Power Holding Co. Ltd. Raipur to the appellant (O.P.), A-19 is photocopy of letter dated 20.03.2012 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the G.M. (H.R.), Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidyut Holding Co. Ltd. Raipur.
6. Shri Gunjan Giri Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous. The District Forum did not consider the material placed before it by the appellant (O.P.). The legal heirs of the deceased Narendra Kumar Yadav, are necessary party in the complaint and for want of the necessary party, the complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum, but the learned District Forum, did not appreciate the above facts and passed the impugned order, which is erroneous. The insurance policy which is issued in favour of the respondent (complainant) is not Workmen's Compensation Policy but it is Group Personal Accidental Insurance Policy, therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased Narendra Kumar Yadav, are necessary party in the complaint and the appellant (O.P.), is not liable to indemnify the respondent (complainant), therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal be allowed.
7. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant) has argued that according to the Agreement // 7 // (Consent Letter) executed between both the parties, the premium of the Group Personal Accidental Insurance policy, was paid by the respondent (complainant) to the appellant (O.P.). The policy is a non- contributory policy (xSj v'aknk;h), therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased, are not necessary party in the complaint. The Agreement (Consent Letter) has been executed between the appellant (O.P.) and respondent (complainant), in which it is mentioned that if any accident is occurred and any employee of the respondent (complainant) is died in the accident, then the appellant (O.P.) will pay the insured amount to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent (complainant), therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just, proper and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, irregularity or illegality and does not call for any interference of this Commission, hence the appeal of the appellant (O.P.), is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.2139 of 2011 - Additional Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited vs. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited decided on 19.03.2014.
8. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
9. The respondent (complainant) filed a document A- 1 i.e. Group Personal Accidental Insurance Policy No.191300/48/2011/1382.
// 8 // According to the said insurance policy, the policy was issued in favour of Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Co. Ltd. Raipur (C.G.) for the period from 04.10.2010 to 03.10.2011. In the insurance policy, the name of the insured is mentioned as Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Co. Ltd. Raipur (C.G.) and premium amount Rs.99,33,453/- was paid by the respondent (complainant) to the appellant (O.P.). The said insurance policy is GPA named policy. From bare perusal of the insurance policy, it appears that the insurance policy has been issued in the name of the respondent (complainant) and the same was not issued in the favour of individual employee of the respondent (complainant).
10. Agreement (Consent Letter) (A-3), has been executed between the appellant (O.P.) and the respondent (complainant) in which it is mentioned that :-
"1. This Scheme will also be effective when all officers/employees died during their employment due to accident, even when the officer/employee is present in the work or not (not on duty). In this Scheme all regular employees of the Power Company as well as Chairman, all Managing Director & all permanent/daily wages/trainee employees who are in contract are also included (Contracted employees are not included).
4. The period of insurance will commence from intervening night of 04.10.2010 i.e. 04.00 PM to intervening night of 03.10.2011 i.e. till 24.00 hours it means the Insurance Company will pay the fixed risk amount and other benefits (if payable) in the matter even when the accidental death occurred after period of insurance.
// 9 //
5. As this Scheme is of Group and Non-Contributory nature, it means under the Scheme the annual premium will be payable by Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Co. Ltd. Therefore, the Insurance Company will issue cheque/draft etc. in favour of Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Co. Ltd. Raipur and sent the same through Industrial Relation Officer, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Co. Ltd. Raipur.
6. The Insurance Company agreed that it will compulsorily pay the risk amount to the Power Company within 30 days from the receipt of entire claim form, otherwise the Insurance Company will pay penalty Rs.100/- (Rs. One hundred only) per day for delay for per case, payment of which will be made by the Insurance Company to the Power Company along with claim. The all relevant documents required by the Insurance Company are :-
(a) Intimation regarding death (b) claim form (filled up) (c) First Information Report (F.I.R.) (d) Post Mortem Report (e) Death Certificate (certified by First Class Officer of Power Company)
(f)) details regarding action taken by Police (g) service certificate of Power Company.
Besides above seven documents, no other documents will be given to the Insurance Company.
7. Besides the above seven agreed points, if the claim is repudiated by the Insurance Company referring any other point then the Power Company has a right to file complaint before Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (I.R.D.A) and other courts, and the Insurance Company will liable to pay the cost of litigation, penalty and interest etc. in that connection."
11. We have perused the para 5 & 6 of the said Agreement (Consent Lettre). From perusal of the same, it appears that the risk // 10 // amount will be paid by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant). The respondent (complainant) pleaded that he deposited a sum of Rs.8,85,480/- before Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Labour Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). The respondent (complainant) also filed copy of order dated 19.10.2011 issued by Executive Engineer (O & M) Dn. C.S.P.D.C.L. Ambikapur by which the amount of Rs 4,42,740/- was sanctioned for payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Narendra Kumar Yadav.
12. In Revision Petition No.14 of 2010 - Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Co. Ltd. vs. M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Revision Petition No.15 of 2010 - Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited vs. M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., decided by Hon'ble National Commission vide common order dated 22.02.2010, Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :-
"..........Strictly speaking, going by the entirety of the facts and circumstances of these cases and considering that the contract of insurance was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent insurance company, it was not necessary to implead the nominees/beneficiaries of the deceased employees as complainants. However, it appears that in order to avoid any controversy between the petitioner and the beneficiaries of the deceased employees and with the intention that the amount of insurance reached the right hands, the State Commission has directed the petitioner to implead the legal heirs of the deceased employees. Though we do not agree with the view // 11 // expressed by the State Commission, in our opinion no harm would be caused if the nominees/beneficiaries of the deceased employees are also joined either as co-complainants or co-respondents along with the insurance company so as to obviate any possible objection. We would thus not like to interfere with the said finding of the State Commission......"
13. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, the legal heirs of the deceased , are not necessary party in the complaint. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum has directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay the respondent (complainant) a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, which is insured amount under Group Personal Accidental Insurance Policy along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 01.06.2012 till realisation The contract of insurance has been entered into between the respondent (complainant) and appellant (O.P.) and it was not necessary to implead the nominees / beneficiaries of the deceased employees, therefore, in the instant case non-impleadment of the legal heirs of the deceased Narendra Kumar Yadav, cannot affect the maintainability of the complaint and the complaint is maintainable.
14. In para 7 of the impugned order, learned District Forum has held that after perusal of the case, we find that in the instant case Group Personal Accidental Insurance Policy has been issued for the complainant, which has been issued by the O.P. From the perusal of // 12 // the matter, it is clear the deceased died during working period and he died when he was repairing the electricity. Generally, a person will do this type of work when he is healthy and any person after falling from such height will certainly sustain grievous injuries or he will die. In these circumstances it cannot be presumed that the death of the deceased has not been occurred due to accident.
15. In the instant case, in the Merg Intimation, it is mentioned that on 03.09.2011 the deceased Narendra Kumar Yadav was working, the accident occurred and due to accident he fell down and was admitted in the hospital and had died on 03.09.2011. In the inquest it is mentioned that due to electrocution the deceased died. From bare perusal of inquest, merg intimation, and post mortem report, it appears that the deceased died due to accident. The autopsy surgeon also opined in the post mortem report that the cause of the death of the deceased is Neurogenic shock and cardiac arrest due to electric current and mode of death is accidental. On bare perusal of above documents, it is established that the death of the deceased Narendra Kumar Yadav was accidental.
16. Learned District Forum vide impugned order has directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the respondent (complainant) and has also directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of // 13 // the complaint i.e. 01.06.2012 till realisation on the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It appears that learned District Forum, has awarded interest @ 6% p.a. on Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint as well as compensation for mental agony to the respondent (complainant) together. The District Forum has already awarded interest @ 6% p.a. on Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 01.06.2012 till realisation, therefore, there was no necessity for the District Forum to separately grant compensation for mental agony to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the respondent (complainant). The respondent (complainant) is a Limited Company, therefore, there appears no question of suffering mental agony by the respondent (complainant).
17. In Appeal No.FA/12/418 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.1, Raipur & another vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Co. Ltd., Through : Additional General Manager (Human Resources), Raipur & 3 others, this Commission vide order dated 20.11.2012 has observed thus :-
"10. Further contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that District Forum has unnecessarily burdened the Insurance Company by directing it to pay penalty @ Rs.100/- per day from 17.01.2009 and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony. In this regard, we find some force in the argument of learned counsel for the Insurance Company, but at the same time we // 14 // are of the view that the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim on untenable grounds and thus, committed deficiency in service, so it is liable to pay sum assured, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date one month after lodging of the claim i.e. 17.01.2009 till date of payment."
18. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the District Forum, has unnecessarily awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony to the respondent (complainant), therefore, the above direction of the District Forum, is liable to be set aside.
19. In view of aforesaid discussions, the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.), is partly allowed and the impugned order of the District Forum dated 28.04.2014, is modified only to the extent that the appellant (O.P.) will not be liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent (complainant) towards compensation for mental agony and that part, is set aside. The remaining part of the impugned order will remain unaltered and is affirmed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar)
President Member Member
/01/2015 / 01 / 201 5 / 01 / 201 5